A Soldier's Duty

[dr_mabeuse]

I've been thinking about this for a while, since before the Abu Ghraib photos: what's a soldier's duty if his commanding officer gives him an order he believes is either illegal or against the Geneva convention and other rules of war to which the US is signatory? What happens to him if he refuses to carry it out? What happens if he does carry it out and it's illegal? Is he responsible? Or his commanding officer, or both?

Is this even discussed as part of a soldier's training?

---dr.M.

 

[Xelebes]

He can get shot by his CO, especially if abandoning the battlefield and then the CO might have to face the World Court if found out and pressured by the International community to bring him forward. Or he can get demoted and be essentially tar and feathered (though only metaphorically, it bites not physically but by economic and social means.) Or you do the order and run the risk of being charged by the World Court, if again there is enough international pressure to bring forward those who commited the illegal actions as those forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

I think.

 

[shereads]

http://world.std.com/home/dacha/WWW/emg/public_html/2003_02_01_blog_archive.html

An excerpt:

The military oath taken at the time of induction reads:

"I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according tothe regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God"

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) 809.ART.90 (20), makes it clear that military personnel need to obey the "lawful command of his superior officer," 891.ART.91 (2), the "lawful order of a warrant officer", 892.ART.92 (1) the "lawful general order", 892.ART.92 (2) "lawful order". In each case, military personnel have an obligation and a duty to only obey Lawful orders and indeed have an obligation to disobey Unlawful orders, including orders by the president that do not comply with the UCMJ. The moral and legal obligation is to the U.S. Constitution and not to those who would issue unlawful orders, especially if those orders are in direct violation of the Constitution and the UCMJ.

During the Iran-Contra hearings of 1987, Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, a decorated World War II veteran and hero, told Lt. Col. Oliver North that North was breaking his oath when he blindly followed the commands of Ronald Reagan. As Inouye stated, "The uniform code makes it abundantly clear that it must be the Lawful orders of a superior officer. In fact it says, 'Members of the military have an obligation to disobey unlawful orders.' This principle was considered so important that we-we, the government of the United States, proposed that it be internationally applied in the Nuremberg trials." (Bill Moyers, The Secret Government, Seven Locks Press; also in the PBS 1987 documentary, The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis)

Senator Inouye was referring to the Nuremberg trials in the post WW II era, when the U.S. tried Nazi war criminals and did not allow them to use the reason or excuse that they were only "following orders" as a defense for their war crimes which resulted in the deaths of millions of innocent men, women, and children. "In 1953, the Department of Defense adopted the principles of the Nuremberg Code as official policy" of the United States. (Hasting Center Report, March-April 1991)

<snip>

The United States Constitution makes treaties that are signed by the government equivalent to the "law of the land" itself, Article VI, para. 2.

 

[Pure]

It is said that the relation of 'military justice' to 'justice' is the same relation as 'military music' is to 'music.'

 

[pussy chaser]

In the end, we will all face the consequences of our own actions!!

shereads:
it is similar in the British forces, we only have to obey lawful commands..well did when i served anyway

 

[Weird Harold]

what's a soldier's duty if his commanding officer gives him an order he believes is either illegal or against the Geneva convention and other rules of war to which the US is signatory? What happens to him if he refuses to carry it out? What happens if he does carry it out and it's illegal? Is he responsible? Or his commanding officer, or both?

Is this even discussed as part of a soldier's training?

---dr.M.

Yes, it is discussed as a part of training -- at least it was in USAF Basic Training circa 1968 through 1989.

However, in practical everyday terms, it's a difficult concept to apply. It takes a very brave soldier to face down a superior unless the order is blatantly illegal and even if it is blatantly illegal circumstances can make disobeying it hazardous to health and/or career.

In the end, though, it is the individual soldier who is responsible for their own actions in following illegal orders -- if they can even determine whch are illegal and which are merely unethical. The Officer/NCO who gave the illegal order is also responsible for the result of those orders, AND for giving an illegal order.

In 21 years in the USAF, I only once had an occasion to question the legality of an order -- over a minor point that got the order reworded to resolve the illegality.

 

[shereads]

Re: Re: A Soldier's Duty

It takes a very brave soldier to face down a superior unless the order is blatantly illegal and even if it is blatantly illegal circumstances can make disobeying it hazardous to health and/or career.

Yes, and it must have been extraordinarily difficult for the young man who came forward with those photographs. The group dynamic never favors whistle-blowers, not even when they're clearly in the right. For people as young as the MPs in these photographs, away from home and living in an alien culture, the need to fit in with the group must be overwhelming.

I wonder what will happen to his military career. Nobody can take any punative action now that this is public, but he's not likely to find an easy road if he chooses a military career. Shooting the messenger never goes out of style.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Re: Re: Re: A Soldier's Duty

Yes, and it must have been extraordinarily difficult for the young man who came forward with those photographs. The group dynamic never favors whistle-blowers, not even when they're clearly in the right. For people as young as the MPs in these photographs, away from home and living in an alien culture, the need to fit in with the group must be overwhelming.

I wonder what will happen to his military career. Nobody can take any punative action now that this is public, but he's not likely to find an easy road if he chooses a military career. Shooting the messenger never goes out of style.

that's the sad truth.

 

[Somme]

He can get shot by his CO, especially if abandoning the battlefield and then the CO might have to face the World Court if found out and pressured by the International community to bring him forward. Or he can get demoted and be essentially tar and feathered (though only metaphorically, it bites not physically but by economic and social means.) Or you do the order and run the risk of being charged by the World Court, if again there is enough international pressure to bring forward those who commited the illegal actions as those forbidden by the Geneva Convention.

I think.

The US won't let the world court try its' soldiers.

 

[Xelebes]

The US won't let the world court try its' soldiers.

I realise that.

 

[oggbashan]

Nuremburg killed the defence 'I was obeying orders' but it only applied to the defeated. If The Allies had been tried for war crimes, many individuals would have been convicted.

UK soldiers operate under 'Rules of Engagement' and most will have served in Northern Ireland where those rules are tested to the limit. The soldiers should know how far they can and cannot go. That will not stop isolated incidents that break the rules but the soldier should be well aware that the act is wrong.

Many states do far worse things as a matter of policy. We shouldn't because we destroy our case for being there.

Og

 

[rgraham666]

A soldier's duty is not to kill, but to die. You offer yourself…

General Sir John Hacket

You may be obliged to make war. You are not obliged to use poison arrows.

Baltazar Gracian y Morales

To my mind, whether you are soldier or civilian, your duty is to humanity at large.

If your actions damage the human species either physically or morally, your duty is to refuse to do so.

Unfortunately, our perceptions are so limited it's difficult to know what is right or not. So you act to the best of your ability and pray it is the right choice. And learn to live with the consequences of your actions.

If you pass the decision making process to some one else you are abrogating your humanity.

 

[cantdog]

a soldier's common-law rights

You have to sign away a lot of your civil rights when you join an army, because in the ordinary way of things no one can be compelled to die at another's behest without a lot of sticky difficulties in the courtrooms.

Hold that hill at all costs is impossible unless you have a population of soldiers who have abdicated their rights in a limited way for the duration of the crisis which brought them there.

Each society does this tightrope act in its own way. We used to say shut up or we'll shoot you ourselves, I'm sure, but it's a little more refined now.

 

[lewdandlicentious]

The rules are quite simple, and I believe they have been set by law.

Any individual committing acts of an inhumane nature, is accountable for those acts, whether acting under orders or not.

Using the defence of, "He/She ordered me to..." is no defence!

I'm pretty certain this has been laid down in law, if not in the US, then certainly here in UK or at war trials.

 

[raphy]

The rules are quite simple, and I believe they have been set by law.

Any individual committing acts of an inhumane nature, is accountable for those acts, whether acting under orders or not.

Using the defence of, "He/She ordered me to..." is no defence!

I'm pretty certain this has been laid down in law, if not in the US, then certainly here in UK or at war trials.

Unfortunately, "in the field", as it were, the choice (depending on the superior officer giving the order) often comes down to:

1) Obey the order and face a war tribunal later on

or

2) Refuse to obey (which is not the same as disobeying) the order and get shot by your superior officer.

A rock and a hard place, no?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Quite possibly.

However, the officer calling the shots is in the wrong to call such shots, and would in turn, be tried for such actions/issuing such orders.

And it is NOT legal to shoot someone of your own side, for disobeying (or refusing to obey) an order, in wartime or any other time.

 

[raphy]

Quite possibly.

However, the officer calling the shots is in the wrong to call such shots, and would in turn, be tried for such actions/issuing such orders.

And it is NOT legal to shoot someone of your own side, for disobeying (or refusing to obey) an order, in wartime or any other time.

Oh, I'm well aware of that.

Still doesn't give much comfort to the poor grunt who has to decide whether or not to obey the illegal order or get shot. That's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation.

I know that if I was in that situation, I'd be thinking "My superior officer doesn't give a shit about the rules of warfare, so he's very likely to shoot me if I don't obey this order. I know that he doesn't give a shit about the rules of warfare, because otherwise he wouldn't be giving me the order in the first place."

 

[lewdandlicentious]

You make a good point Raph, but I know that if I was in that situation, My rifle would be ready to strike first, and I'd make sure there were witnesses!

 

[raphy]

You make a good point Raph, but I know that if I was in that situation, My rifle would be ready to strike first, and I'd make sure there were witnesses!

Well, very true..

Although I do have to ask, how is a situation like that played out? Do you (as the soldier) have the right to shoot your CO if you believe he's about shoot you.

If the situation's less severe and you're not about to be shot, but he's still trying to get someone to follow his illegal order, I suppose you can attempt to relieve him of his duty? If that doesn't work and he resists with deadly force, are you then authorized to use deadly force against him?

 

[lewdandlicentious]

Thankfully I've never come up against that situation, and I know of no-one who has.

I was once told, whilst serving, that if faced with an order that you knew was wrong, you should obey it, then complain to higher authority.

What we're speaking of however is on occasion totally different. The subject is such, that a decision would have to be made on the spot, and the individual would have to live with their actions.

As far as shooting first, refer to normal law. Yes, if you are acting in self defence, for both your situations.


All of that said, "beating" or "humiliating" a prisoner on orders, is something you could do, then report later.

Killing of course, is not!

 

[pussy chaser]

Well, very true..

Although I do have to ask, how is a situation like that played out? Do you (as the soldier) have the right to shoot your CO if you believe he's about shoot you.

If the situation's less severe and you're not about to be shot, but he's still trying to get someone to follow his illegal order, I suppose you can attempt to relieve him of his duty? If that doesn't work and he resists with deadly force, are you then authorized to use deadly force against him?

Because of the setup of just about any military force, there should be more than one person capable of authority(generally, but not always), in real life as stated, it would take a brave person to try and relieve command on their own. I personally would not want to test the courts on wether it was right or not to use deadly force to oust a CO that way!

Overall a soldiers duty is always done, but when the duty has been breached, they are the ones who get full force of the law,..but still no excuse for torturing anyone or anything tho.

My only doubt about all the mess at the moment with the allegations of torture in both the USA and here in Britain. is why has it taken so long for it to hit the news with photos? as both incidents as far as I am aware happened last year(for the Brits, last July). and in my experience of serving for 15 years, if anything untoward went on, we always got to know about it pretty quickly, and anything going on which was dodgy, there would be someone who would highlight it to the proper authorities. again generalisation, not specific

 

[lewdandlicentious]

With the American one, it would appear a lot of people were either involved or "in the know" In effect, a mass cover up was instigated.

The UK one is a bit different, where-as I don't doubt events of this nature did occur, the pictures shown are looking very fake.

It only takes 2 guys, and one to have a camera!!

 

[pussy chaser]

The UK one is a bit different, where-as I don't doubt events of this nature did occur, the pictures shown are looking very fake.

It only takes 2 guys, and one to have a camera!!

very true, but to be honest, in all the times i was on ops..taking a camera was a big no,no!!

back at camp yes, but not while out on patrol etc and besides we would normally have to worry about stuff that was needed. especially in hot country's..we never went anywhere without at least 1 water bottle...

 

[pussy chaser]

The UK one is a bit different, where-as I don't doubt events of this nature did occur, the pictures shown are looking very fake.

It only takes 2 guys, and one to have a camera!!

very true, but to be honest, in all the times i was on ops..taking a camera was a big no,no!!

back at camp yes, but not while out on patrol etc and besides we would normally have to worry about stuff that was needed. especially in hot country's..we never went anywhere without at least 1 water bottle, and a field dressing!

Damn! double posted instead of editing!

 

[lewdandlicentious]

In ANY country, I never went anywhere without 2 water bottles. there was a field dressing stuffed in there somewhere.

Along with a drip set, mmunition, some scoff, more ammo and my Goretex.

Did I mention extra ammo???

The camera was in my bergan. Depended what we were doing actually!